SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT-

ORIENTATED FARMED SEAFOOD IN THAILAND

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By

Arlene Nietes-Satapornvanit

Sustainable Aquaculture Research Group

Institute of Aquaculture, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling

Scotland, United Kingdom

April 2014

i

D E C L A R A T I O N

This thesis has been composed in its entirety by the candidate, except where specifically

acknowledged. The work described in this thesis has been conducted independently and

has not been submitted for any other degree.

Signature: ______________________________________________________

Date: __________________________________________________________

ii

ABSTRACT

Sustainable development of export-orientated farmed seafood in Thailand is a major

issue which can impact local stakeholders as well as global food security. The major

species taken into consideration in this research were initially the Pacific white shrimp

(Litopenaeus vannamei), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), giant freshwater prawn

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), and striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus). After

which more focus was placed on Pacific white shrimp, which is Thailand’s major cultured

seafood being traded for export, and tilapia, which has potential for export but also

enjoying a good domestic market demand.

Actors or stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in aquaculture value chains may

have their own perceptions about sustainability affecting their operations, as various

factors within and outside their own systems could affect these perceptions. This could

lead to different efforts in responding to these factors to make their operations

sustainable.

Three major areas were covered in this study, namely a) describing the strengths and

weaknesses of shrimp and tilapia production in Thailand in relation to their export

potential, b) evaluating the status of compliance to global aquaculture standards of

shrimp and tilapia farming (covering technical and labour aspects), and c) determining

perceptions of sustainability across the shrimp and tilapia value chains in Thailand, with a

focus on the production sector.

iii

A mixed-methods approach was employed to obtain information in the study sites in

Thailand. Basic field interviews were conducted among 206 shrimp producers in 6

provinces in the east and south, and 199 tilapia producers in 4 provinces in the west and

east, in terms of farm operations and perceptions of factors which will affect the

sustainability of their operations, including generational aspects on future shrimp and

tilapia farming.

Key informant interviews were also conducted among other value chain actors (>30) such

as hatchery/nursery operators, input/service providers, processors/exporters and

technical/ institutional members to determine whether there are differences in their

sustainability perceptions.

In addition, face to face interviews with 18 shrimp farm male and female workers were

conducted (Thai and migrant workers), as well as with 14 key informants involved in

shrimp farm labour issues in Thailand, specifically for well-being and working conditions.

Stakeholders cited environmental (technical), economic, social and institutional (equity)

aspects of their operations as factors which will affect the sustainability of their

operations. Disease, product price and water quality were the three most important

sustainability factors among shrimp farmers, whereas water quality, disease and extreme

weather conditions were for tilapia farmers. Product price was the most cited by input

service providers, hatchery operators, shrimp and tilapia producers, and processors.

iv

Both Thai and migrant shrimp farm workers perceived a better or much better-off quality

of life working in shrimp farms in Thailand than in their previous occupations or status.

Almost all shrimp farms meet more than what are required under the Thai labour law or

the global aquaculture standards for human resources. With the importance of migrant

labour in Thailand, much still needs to be done in terms of assessing the impact of their

working in Thailand on their families left behind in their own countries, as well as on their

communities, including status of social protection to avoid exploitation.

Each stakeholder group strives to achieve sustainability so they can remain in operation in

the next few years, to survive on the business individually and corporately, and to be the

best provider of sustainably and ethically produced seafood for the world. The

compliance to aquaculture global standards and certifications may be considered to

contribute to the sustainability of operations by improving farm practices thereby

reducing detrimental impacts on farm and external environments, as well as

strengthening human relations with in the farm and in the community. However there are

some aspects of these standards which could eliminate the small players. In this study,

the large scale farms were more likely to comply with all the standards, followed by

medium scale, and lastly the small scale farms.

The differences in perceptions which exist among these stakeholders should be

understood by every sector and efforts should be made to address them so that there is

cohesiveness in giving support to achieve sustainable seafood production and trade.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heartfelt gratitude to the following who have been part of my PhD journey, and without

whom this piece of work would not have been completed:

The research participants (shrimp and tilapia farmers, other value chain actors, farm workers and

key informants from various government and non-government organisations) in Thailand who

willingly provided valuable information and knowledge on their operations/ work, and shared

their ideas and perceptions, during field interviews, workshops and meetings - I hope your voice

could be heard through this manuscript;

Prof. David C. Little and Dr. Francis J. Murray for their supervision, guidance, support and

encouragement to keep thinking, discovering and learning from the ground without forgetting the

bigger picture; and for the various opportunities to learn from their expertise and experiences, to

expand and apply ideas to the real world;

The EU FP7 Sustaining Ethical Aquaculture Trade (SEAT) Project (No. 222889) for funding the

research; and for additional support from the UoStirling Student Fund and the Churches

International Student Network-UK;

The SEAT-Kasetsart University team, led by Dr. Kriengkrai Satapornvanit, and support from Asst.

Prof. Suriyan Tunkijjanukij, Dr. Prapansak Srisapoome, Dr. Pongtep Wilaipun, Dr. Kulapa

Supongpan, Dr. Tanaradee Khumya, and the research assistants, esp. Wanwichanee Sritha,

Kwanklao Srisopha, Laksiri Chomcheun, Jidapa Khatikarn, for their untiring support, guidance in

local knowledge and wisdom, and perseverance; to SEAT-UoS, esp. to Will Leschen, Lam Phan

Thanh and Wenbo Zhang, for the fruitful exchanges of ideas, and for sharing references and

computer skills including helping with formatting this manuscript;

Prof. Peter Edwards and Prof. Chang Kwei Lin, for the recommendations and wise counsel;

The Global Café team (Carol, Christine, Geoff, Hamish, Ken & Joan) for the encouragement and

the coffees; the hospitality of Dely & Raymond Elliot, Ruth & Islwyn Williams, Jacqueline Primrose

& family, Dave & Dorrit Little; IoAquaculture friends esp. Nattakarn, Winarti, Thao, Cai, Nancy,

Phuoc, Wanna, Yu-Ching, Udin, Stuart, Mamun for the friendship, & sharing of ideas, coffee, food

& laughter;

vi

Sa mga imaw ko sa Dungug Kinaray-a kag Balay Sugidanun, sa pagtugro nyo kanakun kang

kahigayunan nga makapa-utwas kang akun paminsarun kag baratyagun paagi sa pagsulat sa atun

pinalangga nga hambal;

My dearest Mom, sisters, and brother, for their love, patience & encouragement; and the

memory of my Dad, who continues to inspire, encourage and strengthen me;

My dear husband Key for the greatest support, encouragement and love, so I could continue with

this endeavour, always reminding me to be strong, and to remain focused to achieve the goal of

completing this research;

And to my Lord God, from Whom all blessings flow, for His guidance, protection, healing, and

enduring love. (Isaiah 41:10).

… ๆ ...

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D E C L A R A T I O N .................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. x LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xiii LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... xv

1. CHAPTER 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Rationale / Problem statement ........................................................................... 1 1.2. Labour issues ....................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Gender issues ...................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Brief information about the SEAT project............................................................ 9 1.5. Research objectives ........................................................................................... 10 1.6. Key concepts/theoretical framework ................................................................ 11 1.7. Structure of thesis ............................................................................................. 13

2. CHAPTER 2 General Methodology ............................................................................... 16 2.1. Research activities ............................................................................................. 16 2.2. Sample frame ..................................................................................................... 19 2.3. Definition of farm scale criteria ......................................................................... 21 2.4. Selection of study areas ..................................................................................... 23 2.5. Farmer sampling ................................................................................................ 25 2.6. Integrated farm surveys (IFS) ............................................................................. 27 2.7. Survey instruments ............................................................................................ 28 2.8. Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 31

3. CHAPTER 3 A systems overview of four commercially important farmed seafood species with an export focus in Thailand ............................................................................. 34

3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 34 3.2. Trends/historical data ........................................................................................ 42

3.2.1. Freshwater prawn ................................................................................... 48 3.2.2. Striped catfish ......................................................................................... 53 3.2.3. Tilapia ..................................................................................................... 55 3.2.4. Penaeid shrimp ....................................................................................... 57

3.3. Importance of seed and hatchery development ............................................... 61 3.4. Emergence of feed industry .............................................................................. 68 3.5. Importance of seafood processing capacity ..................................................... 74

3.5.1. Shrimp ..................................................................................................... 80 3.5.2. Tilapia ..................................................................................................... 82 3.5.3. Pangasius ................................................................................................ 83 3.5.4. Cold storage ............................................................................................ 85

3.6. Inter-sectoral learning ....................................................................................... 86 3.7. Seafood intrinsic qualities and issues for domestic and export ........................ 90 3.8. Stakeholder analysis and roles of intermediaries .............................................. 98 3.9. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 105

viii

4. CHAPTER 4 Shrimp and tilapia farming in Thailand: fulfilling domestic and global market needs ..................................................................................................................... 109

4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 109 4.2. Research hypothesis/questions ....................................................................... 110 4.3. Scope ............................................................................................................... 112 4.4. Materials and Methods ................................................................................... 112

4.4.1. Integrated Farm Survey (2010-2011) .................................................... 112 4.4.2. Transition survey (2013) ....................................................................... 114 4.4.3. Data analysis ......................................................................................... 116

4.5. Results.............................................................................................................. 118 4.5.1. Existing aquaculture certification and standards ................................. 118 4.5.2. Study sites ............................................................................................. 122 4.5.3. Farming systems ................................................................................... 124 4.5.4. Seed source........................................................................................... 130 4.5.5. Stocking size .......................................................................................... 131 4.5.6. Containment systems ........................................................................... 132 4.5.7. Status of farm operations according to selected standards and certifications criteria ........................................................................................... 136 4.5.8. Trends and transition survey: changes occurring among farms ........... 168

4.6. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 179 4.6.1. Certification, standards and farming systems ...................................... 179 4.6.2. Legal aspects ......................................................................................... 182 4.6.3. Environmental Management: Effluents ................................................ 184 4.6.4. Environmental management: Water quality monitoring ..................... 187 4.6.5. Environmental management: Pond sludge .......................................... 188 4.6.6. Farm management: Feed management ............................................... 191 4.6.7. Energy Use ............................................................................................ 194 4.6.8. Fish welfare issues ................................................................................ 195 4.6.9. Trends and changes .............................................................................. 197

4.7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 198 5. CHAPTER 5 Assessment of the quality of life of shrimp farm workers in Thailand ... 201

5.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 201 5.2. Methodology ................................................................................................... 208

5.2.1. Survey respondents .............................................................................. 209 5.2.2. Face to face interviews ......................................................................... 213 5.2.3. Key informants ...................................................................................... 218 5.2.4. Survey instruments ............................................................................... 219 5.2.5. Analysis ................................................................................................. 220

5.3. Results.............................................................................................................. 220 5.3.1. Background of workers ......................................................................... 220 5.3.2. Quality of life of workers in shrimp farms ............................................ 221 5.3.3. Status of compliance to labour standards ............................................ 228 5.3.4. Treatment of workers , especially migrant workers in shrimp farms ... 253 5.3.5. Importance of migrant labour in shrimp farms in Thailand ................. 260 5.3.6. Gender aspects of shrimp farm labour................................................. 265

5.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 267 5.4.1. Quality of Life of shrimp farm workers ................................................. 267

ix

5.4.2. On compliance to global standards and certifications ......................... 270 5.4.3. On treatment of migrant workers by employers .................................. 273 5.4.4. On importance of migrant labour in shrimp farms in Thailand ............ 276 5.4.5. Gender issues ....................................................................................... 277

5.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 279 6. CHAPTER 6 Shrimp and tilapia value chain actors in Thailand: their perceptions on sustainability ...................................................................................................................... 282

6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 282 6.1.1. Sustainability definitions/theories ....................................................... 284 6.1.2. Global value chains ............................................................................... 285 6.1.3. Research questions ............................................................................... 287

6.2. Methodology ................................................................................................... 287 6.2.1. Activity 1. Scoping/exploratory research ............................................. 289 6.2.2. Activity 2. Integrated Farm Survey (IFS) ............................................... 291 6.2.3. Activity 3. State of the System Workshop ........................................... 292 6.2.4. Analysis ................................................................................................. 292

6.3. Results.............................................................................................................. 294 6.3.1. Generational information ..................................................................... 294 6.3.2. Stakeholders perceptions on sustainability of their operations in the next 1-2 years ...................................................................................................... 298

6.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 306 6.4.1. Generational information ..................................................................... 306 6.4.2. Sustainability perceptions .................................................................... 312

6.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 317 7. CHAPTER 7 Overall Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................... 319

7.1. Overall Discussion ............................................................................................ 319 7.2. Reflections on sustainability perceptions of shrimp and tilapia VC actors ..... 330 7.3. Future perspectives and policy implications ................................................... 334 7.4. Critique of the methodology ........................................................................... 336 7.5. Recommendations for future study ................................................................ 338 7.6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 340

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 343 9. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 360

Appendix 1. Contributions to research design, data collection, data analysis and writing ......................................................................................................................... 360 Appendix 2. Checklist on Scoping and Overview of Production Systems .................. 361 Appendix 3. Details on key informant interviews for sample framing ...................... 364 Appendix 4. Questionnaire for Integrated Farm Survey ............................................ 391 Appendix 5. Questionnaire for Shrimp Transition Survey ......................................... 405 Appendix 6. Questionnaire for Face to Face Survey .................................................. 412 Appendix 7. Checklist for Key Informant Interview on Migrant Labour in Shrimp Farms .......................................................................................................................... 416

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 The general research framework ................................................................ 13

Figure 2.1 Major research activities and timeline undertaken to collect field data .... 17 Figure 2.2 Provinces where the surveys were conducted ........................................... 24

Figure 3.1 Production of freshwater species from culture systems ............................ 39 Figure 3.2 Volume of exports of freshwater aquaculture species, 2009 to 2013 ........ 41 Figure 3.3 Production and export of tilapia, 2002 to 2013 .......................................... 42 Figure 3.4 Annual production of important aquaculture species ............................... 47 Figure 3.5 Production and growth rate of freshwater prawn in Thailand

(1989-2009) ........................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3.6 Production and export data of giant freshwater prawn from 2002

to 2013 .................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 3.7 Production of striped catfish in Thailand and Vietnam .............................. 54 Figure 3.8 Tilapia production and volume of exports for Nile and red tilapia ............. 57 Figure 3.9 Black tiger and white shrimp production in Thailand, 1987 to 2013 .......... 58 Figure 3.10 Food safety incidence reports on Thai shrimp exports to Europe ............ 59 Figure 3.11 Location of feed mills and production areas by species ........................... 70 Figure 3.12 Data map showing the number of seafood processing plants .................. 75 Figure 3.13 Establishment of processing plants and GDP % growth in Thailand ......... 76 Figure 3.14 Quantity and value of shrimp exported, 2008 to 2013 ............................. 81 Figure 3.15 Proportion of shrimp production for domestic and export markets,

2008 to 2013 ......................................................................................................... 82 Figure 3.16 Roles of independent cold storage companies ......................................... 85 Figure 3.17 Freshwater prawn exported to several countries and value .................... 94 Figure 4.1 Reasons for not responding to shrimp phone transition survey .............. 115 Figure 4.2 Location, scale and number of shrimp farms surveyed, 2010-2011 ......... 122 Figure 4.3 Location, scale and number of tilapia farms surveyed, 2010-2011 .......... 123 Figure 4.4 Tilapia farming systems according to farm scale ...................................... 126 Figure 4.5 Source of shrimp seed by farm scale ......................................................... 130 Figure 4.6 Source of tilapia seed by farm scale .......................................................... 131 Figure 4.7 The number of shrimp ponds according to farm scales ............................ 133 Figure 4.8 Number of ponds and cages in tilapia farms surveyed ............................. 134 Figure 4.9 Uses of ponds and cages in shrimp and tilapia farms by farm scale ......... 135 Figure 4.10 Status of surveyed farms regarding registration with DoF according

to species and farm scale .................................................................................... 137 Figure 4.11 Ways to treat the effluents from shrimp farms ...................................... 139 Figure 4.12 Status of effluent treatment among tilapia pond farms ......................... 140 Figure 4.13 Methods and routes of discharge of effluents from shrimp and

tilapia ponds by farm scale ................................................................................. 142 Figure 4.14 Water quality monitoring in shrimp and tilapia farms by farm scale ..... 144 Figure 4.15 Fate of sediments from shrimp and tilapia pond farms .......................... 145 Figure 4.16 Frequency of sediment removal in shrimp and tilapia pond farms

according to farm scale ....................................................................................... 146

xi

Figure 4.17 Detailed frequency of removing sediments for more than one culture cycle ........................................................................................................ 147

Figure 4.18 Types of feeds used in shrimp and tilapia culture by farm scales........... 148 Figure 4.19 Shrimp feed manufacturer preference .................................................. 149 Figure 4.20 Tilapia feed manufacturer preference .................................................... 150 Figure 4.21 Record keeping by species and farm scales ............................................ 153 Figure 4.22 Sources of energy in shrimp and tilapia farms by farm scale ................. 154 Figure 4.23 Uses of energy in shrimp and tilapia farms according to farm scales .... 155 Figure 4.24 Precautions taken by farms against predation and poaching by

farm scale ............................................................................................................ 156 Figure 4.25 Shrimp farms checking PLs by PCR method ........................................... 158 Figure 4.26 Services available to shrimp and tilapia farmers for diagnosing

disease problems ................................................................................................ 160 Figure 4.27 Pond lining in shrimp farms used for grow-out production

according to farm scales ..................................................................................... 161 Figure 4.28 A large scale shrimp farm with biosecurity features ............................... 162 Figure 4.29 Fate of stock lost during culture period .................................................. 163 Figure 4.30 Livelihood activities of tilapia farmers .................................................... 164 Figure 4.31 Livelihood activities of shrimp farmers ................................................... 165 Figure 4.32 Changes in shrimp farms during 2005 to 2010 ....................................... 168 Figure 4.33 Changes in shrimp farms in various categories during 2005 to 2010 ..... 170 Figure 4.34 Changes in tilapia farms 2005 to 2010 .................................................... 171 Figure 4.35 Changes in tilapia cage and pond farms during 2005 to 2010 ................ 172 Figure 4.36 General status of shrimp farms two years after IFS ............................... 173 Figure 4.37 General status of tilapia farms two years after integrated farm

survey .................................................................................................................. 174 Figure 4.38 Changes that occurred in shrimp farms by farm scales ......................... 177 Figure 4.39 Changes in the marketing aspects of shrimp farming ............................. 178

Figure 5.1 The shrimp value chain in Thailand ........................................................... 202 Figure 5.2 Country of origin and gender of shrimp farm workers surveyed.............. 221 Figure 5.3 Previous occupation of shrimp farm workers .......................................... 222 Figure 5.4 Country and gender distribution of workers’ occupation prior to

shrimp farm work ................................................................................................ 223 Figure 5.5 The ages of workers in shrimp farms interviewed for the survey. ........... 233 Figure 5.6 Basic steps for registering migrant workers ............................................. 240 Figure 5.7 Recruitment pathways for migrant workers ............................................ 247 Figure 5.8 Main areas of communication and interaction by farm scales ................ 259 Figure 5.9 Main areas of communication and interaction by origin ......................... 260

Figure 6.1 The main elements in sustainable seafood production and trade ........... 285 Figure 6.2 Responses of farmers according to their educational level on

the future involvement of their children ............................................................ 296 Figure 6.3 Previous occupations of survey respondents ............................................ 298 Figure 6.4 Sustainability factors ranked no. 1 by shrimp producers .......................... 299 Figure 6.5 Sustainability factors ranked no. 1 by tilapia producers ........................... 300

xii

Figure 6.6 Sustainability factors cited most frequently by other stakeholder groups .................................................................................................................. 303

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. 1 Shrimp production/farm scales ................................................................... 20 Table 2. 2 Tilapia pond production/farm scales ........................................................... 21 Table 2.3 Topics covered in the IFS questionnaires .................................................... 29

Table 3.1 A summary of milestones in the aquaculture industry in Thailand relevant to the four target species ....................................................................... 43

Table 3. 2 Number of aquatic feed mills and their original activities .......................... 71 Table 3. 3 Constraints faced by processing plants in exporting their products ........... 78 Table 3. 4 Classification of forms of exports by species ............................................... 79 Table 3. 5 The number of plants processing various species for export ...................... 80 Table 3. 6 Number of cold storage facilities and scope of activities ............................ 86 Table 3. 7 Definition of shrimp farming systems ......................................................... 95 Table 3. 8 Strengths and weaknesses of Thailand tilapia for export ........................... 98 Table 3. 9 Stakeholder analysis matrix (aquaculture global value chain in Thailand) . 99

Table 4. 1 Study sites with corresponding number of farms by scale ....................... 113 Table 4. 2 Transition survey sample design ................................................................ 115 Table 4.3 General information on the global aquaculture standards used

in this study ......................................................................................................... 118 Table 4. 4 Summary of standards for shrimp and tilapia farms based on global

certifiers for aquaculture that have relevance to this study. ............................. 120 Table 4. 5 Aquaculture standards by DoF, Thailand ................................................... 121 Table 4. 6 Certified status of shrimp farms surveyed ................................................ 122 Table 4. 7 Production characteristics of shrimp farms by farm scale ........................ 124 Table 4. 8 Production characteristics of tilapia pond and cage farms surveyed ....... 128 Table 4. 9 Production characteristics of tilapia pond polyculture with ≥ 3 species ... 129 Table 4. 10 Whether there was agreement or not regarding discharge of

effluent with neighbours ..................................................................................... 143 Table 4. 11 Number of precautionary measures used by farms to avoid predation and

poaching .............................................................................................................. 157 Table 4. 12 Summary of outcomes in relation to compliance criteria of certification

standards ............................................................................................................. 167 Table 4. 13 Reasons for stopping tilapia farming temporarily ................................... 175

Table 5.1 Responses in relation to labour changes in the shrimp farms ................... 211 Table 5.2 Information on farm owners and managers interviewed ......................... 214 Table 5.3 Information on shrimp farm workers who were interviewed ................... 215 Table 5.4 Key informants interviewed for worker issues, at their place of work ..... 219 Table 5.5 Perceptions of shrimp farm workers on their quality of life ..................... 224 Table 5.6 Reasons for workers’ perceptions of a better quality of life ..................... 225 Table 5. 7 Salaries and bonuses of shrimp farm workers according to farm scale .... 229 Table 5. 8 Benefits provided to shrimp farm workers ............................................... 231 Table 5. 9 Types of migrant workers hired in shrimp farms...................................... 239 Table 5. 10 Costs in the recruitment and registration of migrant workers............... 241 Table 5. 11 Opinions on keeping the original documents by employers .................. 242

xiv

Table 5. 12 Types of contract agreements with workers .......................................... 245 Table 5. 13 Various ways to recruit shrimp farm workers ........................................ 246 Table 5. 14 Status of compliance to labour standards in shrimp farms .................... 252 Table 5. 15 Shrimp farm employers’ opinions on working with different

nationalities ......................................................................................................... 255 Table 5. 16 Future plans of migrant workers after working in shrimp farms in

Thailand ............................................................................................................... 263

Table 6. 1 Number of value chain actors interviewed/visited/met during the scoping research .......................................................................................... 290

Table 6. 2 Important sustainability factors according to ranking by shrimp farmers ................................................................................................................ 299

Table 6. 3 Important sustainability factors according to ranking by tilapia farmers ................................................................................................................ 301

Table 6. 4 Sustainability factors most cited by respondents from different stakeholder groups ............................................................................................. 305

Table 7.1 Summary of sustainability issues for shrimp and tilapia ............................ 331

xv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACFS Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards

AEC ASEAN Economic Community

AHPND Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Disease AIT Asian Institute of Technology

ASC Aquaculture Stewardship Council

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BAAC Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives

BAP Best Aquaculture Practices

CoC Code of Conduct CP(F) Charoen Pokphand (Foods)

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DoE Department of Employment

DoF Department of Fisheries DLPW Department of Labour Protection and Welfare

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EM Effective Microorganism

EMS Early Mortality Syndrome

EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations

FCR Feed Conversion Ratio

FMD Fisheries Movement Document

FW Freshwater

GAA Global Aquaculture Alliance GAP Good Aquaculture Practices

GVC Global Value Chain

HS Harmonized System (Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System) for traded products

IFS Integrated Farm Survey ILO International Labour Organisation

IPEC International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour

KI Key informant

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

MOL Ministry of Labour MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NACA Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia and the Pacific

NET Northeast Thailand

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

PE Polyethylene PFO Provincial Fisheries Office

PLs Postlarvae

ppt Parts per thousand

QOL Quality of Life

RASFF Rapid Alerts System for Food and Feed SEAT Sustaining Ethical Aquaculture Trade

SPF Specific Pathogen Free

SPR Specific Pathogen Resistant

SSP Sustainable Shrimp Programme

TAO Tambon (sub-district) Administrative Organisation TFFA Thai Frozen Foods Association

WSSV White spot syndrome virus

YHV Yellow head virus

1

1. CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1.1. Rationale / Problem statement

Aquaculture is becoming more important in supplying the world’s demand for seafood

(FAO, 2012) and Thailand has become a major player in seafood production, processing

and international trade. Strategies for aquaculture production and trade have been

created through government and private sector efforts to ensure sustainable production

and trade for food security. On the other hand, markets and consumers have set

standards and certifications to ensure good quality seafood grown in a sustainable

manner, with the aim to guide producers and make consumers confident in their choices

(Bostock et al., 2010). Bush et al. (2013) have argued though that aquaculture

certification is just one of the many approaches to achieve sustainable production and

that it could lead to a divide between larger scale and smaller scale farms in terms of

ability to comply. Similar concerns have been voiced previously for example by Belton et

al. (2011) regarding Pangasius aquaculture in Bangladesh and Vietnam. In fact, third-party

certification could be more of a power and politically-driven process (Konefal and

Hatanaka, 2011) which could affect compliance because not all farms are homogeneous.

This brings us to the issue of sustainability, and how it is defined. Bell & Morse (2008) had

pointed out that even though sustainability is a popular concept there is no specific

definition of the word. They further added that since people do not live in similar

conditions vis-à-vis environmental, social, and economic, it would not be right to just have

one definition of sustainability. The word could mean differently to various people,

depending on their own value systems (Bremer et al., 2013). On the other hand, a general

overview of the term was provided by Robertson (2014), saying that “sustainability refers

2

to systems and processes that are able to operate and persist on their own over long

periods of time.” Thus it is necessary that the perceptions of sustainability of various

stakeholders is known and understood among themselves and between producers and

consumers, and the intermediaries of the value chains that connect them.

Sustainable development of export-orientated farmed seafood in Thailand is an issue that

covers various aspects. It is not just the environmental or technical aspects or impacts of

the aquaculture farms that should be factored in, but also the economic and social

aspects, and the impacts and interactions, including the costs and benefits of all these

aspects (L. Lebel et al., 2009; Lebel et al., 2002; Whitmarsh and Palmieri, 2009). As an

example, Lebel et al. (2002) suggested that Thailand’s highly intensive (black tiger) shrimp

production systems as well as “complex organizational structure” could not really be

considered sustainable, and called for changes in modes of production, distribution,

processing and governance (Lebel et al., 2002). Furthermore, it has to be noted that the

concept of needs for, and limitations of, resources are core aspects for defining

sustainability (WCED, 1987). There is a question of whose responsibility it is to achieve

sustainable development in aquaculture. Actors directly and indirectly involved in

aquaculture value-chains may lack a broader understanding of sustainability beyond their

own concerns or business interests. Individual stakeholders do not necessarily share the

same perspectives, even those coming from the same value chain node. There could be

many factors within and outside their own systems which could affect their perceptions

leading to different efforts in responding to these factors to make their operations

sustainable. Therefore an improved or shared understanding of sustainability would

enhance and/or accelerate a drive to more sustainable practices.

3

In order to focus efforts to achieve sustainable seafood production and trade to benefit

both producers and consumers in Thailand and abroad, it is important to determine who

the key stakeholders are, what they think about the sustainability of their operations,

how different or similar are these perceptions are with each other, and what they are

doing to improve sustainability. Looking at sustainability with its many facets requires a

transdisciplinary approach, wherein various disciplines merge together to come up with a

workable solution for the society, with a combination of qualitative and quantitative

methods (Brandt et al., 2013).

This study was more focused on farms, therefore it was necessary to classify farms in

order to differentiate them. The main classification, aside from primary species cultured,

was farm scale. During key informant interviews to determine the number of farms

according to farm scales in the area, the respondents based their classification of ‘farm-

scale’ by simply responding according to the size or area of farm. Farm scale is usually

based on size or area of the farm while other factors that indicate scale of farm

operations are not considered, such as labour, farm ownership and management (Murray

et al., 2011). Thus for the purpose of this research, the SEAT project developed its own

criteria for farm scaling to cover these factors. The details on farm scales used in this

research are explained in Chapter 2.

Due to the growing importance of and interest in certification and standards especially in

global trade (Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and

Certification, 2012; Washington and Ababouch, 2011), the level of compliance of farms

4

could affect their participation in trade. Compliance to standards may be affected by the

scale of operation of the farms, in that larger scale farms may be more likely to comply

than smaller scale farms. The direct impact of compliance to standards is improvement in

the production practices of the certified entity, which could also impact positively its

external environment including other stakeholders (Steering Committee of the State-of-

Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification, 2012). In the case of coffee,

compliance to standards resulted in an “overall income impact” as well as “spill-over

effects on adjacent communities”, although at the same time there were also weaknesses

such as hidden costs and hindrances to trade (Giovannucci and Ponte, 2005).

1.2. Labour issues

Aquaculture production and trade in Thailand is providing employment, and thus

contributing to food security both domestically and globally. With sustainability being

linked with human dignity and the quality of life (van Egmond & de Vries, 2011), it is also

a main issue to focus on the lives involved in aquaculture operations. Recently there has

been a lot of attention to labour issues in shrimp aquaculture, and the quality of life or

well-being of those employed in the sector. A number of case studies and reports have

been presented regarding the situation outside the fish/shrimp farming sector i.e.

upstream with the capture fisheries and downstream with the pre-processing and

processing sectors, with the labour abuses and exploitation, child labour, and human

trafficking issues, especially with migrant workers from neighbouring countries of

Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar (Derks, 2013, 2010; EJF, 2013a, 2013b; ILO, 2013a;

ILRF/WWU, 2013; Sakaew and Tangpratchakoon, 2009; US Department of State, 2013;

Vartiala et al., 2013). In most of the cases mentioned above, writers referred to the

5

“shrimp farming industry” as a whole. However, there is not much information being

reported on the labour situation at the farm level except recently by Resurreccion & Sajor

(2010 and 2011) which was specific on gender aspects. Even ILO in Thailand had

mentioned that the risk of labour abuse at the farm level may be lower than that in the

factories and processing plants (Toumo Poutiainen, personal communication, 2013), and

acknowledged that this conclusion was based more on anecdotal evidence rather than

data. A report on child labour i.e. children involved in economic activities, in selected

areas in Thailand related to aquaculture was published recently by ILO/IPEC project and

confirmed the existence of child labour in those specific areas, in fisheries and

aquaculture (ILO, 2013a).

A total of 11.71 M workers as of early 2014 were reported in Agriculture, Forestry and

Fishery sectors (MOL, 2014). In addition, the Ministry of Labour reported that there were

1,211,104 legal migrant workers, and 23,391 illegal migrant workers. The migrant to

employed workers ratio was 2.93% in 2013 (MOL, 2014). This records the documented

workers and does not specify how many are working in the aquaculture sector, more so in

farms. Kruijssen et al. (2013) estimated less than 1% of the total workforce (Thai and

migrants) are involved in the fishing, farming and processing sectors, and does not

include the workforce in fish markets.

It has been estimated that there are about 1 million people involved in the shrimp

industry sector (Songsangjinda and Smithrithee, 2008; Tanticharoen et al., 2008),

however, there are no specific numbers of people employed in aquaculture farms. In the

Department of Employment, the number of registered migrant workers in aquaculture is

6

recorded under the agriculture and livestock category. There is a separate category for

fisheries sector but this refers to work on capture fishing vessels. Thus there are no

reliable figures to estimate the total number of workers in the shrimp and fish farming

sector.

Species-specific global standards and certification for aquaculture farms also include the

community and human resources aspects, focussing on working conditions of the workers

such as worker safety, employee relations, corporate social responsibility and responsible

social practices (ASC, 2014, 2012; GAA-BAP, 2013; GlobalGAP, 2012, 2011). It does not

take into consideration other aspects which are not directly related to the work, such as

informal work contribution by a family member or employment of couples, which are

important considerations for workers living on-farm. Issues regarding the quality of life of

workers and families, and relationships, therefore gender issues, and their living and

working conditions in the farms need to be considered. The OECD’s Better Life Initiative

(OECD, 2013) may be useful if it is applicable to sectoral or value chain node evaluation of

well-being. Another useful approach is that of Costanza et al. (2007) and Petrosillo et al.

(2013) which suggested to incorporate aspects of opportunities, human needs and one’s

perceptions of well-being.

The issue on the importance of migrant labour in the shrimp sector leads us to the

question of why there is such a degree of dependence and the issue of the relative

absence of Thai workers (ARCM/IAS/CU, 2013; Human Rights Watch, 2010; ILO, 2013a;

Resurreccion and Sajor, 2010). Whereas in the past, there was local migration mainly

from northeastern provinces to work in shrimp farms in the east and south, the situation

7

appears to have changed considerably (Resurreccion and Sajor, 2011). Local migration

was common among northeastern Thais in search of better incomes to survive the

poverty in their region (Ekachai, 1990) and this was the reason to drive them to work in

many available occupations in other regions in Thailand. Rigg & Nattapoolwat (2001)

reported the loss of labour from rice farming to more lucrative jobs in orchards and

factories.

1.3. Gender issues

Value chain actors are in constant interaction with each other, to transact business, for

business networking, and for family and social activities. In analysing these interactions, a

gender perspective is necessary in order to guide the framework of evaluation of the

impacts of international trade on gender relations among value chain actors in selected

countries in Asia. Gender refers to the social differences between men and women, boys

and girls, which are determined by society and may be learned and changed, and could

vary between and within cultures (FAO, 2001; GGCA, 2009). As noted by Laven et al.

(2009), most tools and interventions lean toward non-gender sensitiveness in working

with value chains and rural livelihoods, thus they have attempted to create a trajectory

on gender in value chains by combining gender and women empowerment with value

chain/pro-poor development.

The export of seafood from producing countries has increased considerably over the last

two decades, for selected species such as shrimp in Thailand. Despite the high value

earnings from foreign trade, there remains a vibrant domestic market demand for other

species namely tilapia and freshwater giant prawn. The intensity of labour use along the

8

value chains varies between countries and among species, and although both men and

women may be present in each value chain node, there are roles which have been

specific to each gender based on their ability, culture and skills, and benefits could be

different between genders (UNRISD, 2012). Moreover, UNRISD also reported about

disparities in benefits between men and women along the value chains, not only in

aquaculture but in general employment. The same trend could be seen in non-timber

forest products in Africa wherein women face many obstacles to participate in economic

activities (Shackleton et al., 2011). In addition, Laven and Verhart (2011) also pointed out

that women worked in parts of the value chain which have lower values, thereby getting

lower benefits compared to men.

In Thailand shrimp processing plants for example, women are usually involved in work

needing skills and detail such as filleting and deveining, while men were delegated to

heavy lifting tasks, driving and machinery work. In Bangladesh, >40% of fry catchers were

women and girls and > 60% of workers in the processing plants were women (USAID,

2006). In Vietnam and Nigeria, women are more visible in growout/farming, processing

and marketing, rather than in hatcheries (Veliu et al., 2009).

The gender aspect is a cross-cutting theme in this research, as this study deals with not

only the physical aspects of aquaculture but also assesses the human aspects through

their roles and interactions as stakeholders, value chain actors and workers.

Understanding gender is also important in well-being studies (OECD, 2013). The

promotion and implementation of gender equality in aquaculture are critical for any

contribution of the sector to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Arenas and

9

Lentisco, 2011). Although implementing a comprehensive gender analysis is problematic

in most research contexts, integrating gender aspects into a broader social and economic

analysis can contribute to an understanding of how male and female actors’ needs could

be addressed and met, for e.g. finances, decision making, information, and actual tasks

(Lebel et al., 2009). In this way, each actor will not lose opportunities for advancement

and their access to resources to develop themselves and improve their quality of life

(Pryck, 2013).

1.4. Brief information about the SEAT project

The Sustaining Ethical Aquaculture Trade (SEAT) Project was implemented under the

Framework Program 7 of the European Commission, under a research consortium of 13

institutional partners from Europe and Asia. The SEAT project was conceptualised during

the period of rising global consumption of seafood and associated trade volumes due to

an increasing population, increased wealth and changes in the eating habits of

consumers. With more than half of the seafood traded internationally, from developing

to developed countries, there has been a growing concern by markets and consumers

regarding how the processes along the global value chains for seafood meet standards for

sustainable food production and trading. The SEAT Project looked at the four key species

groups namely the river catfish (Pangasiidae), freshwater river prawns, marine shrimp,

and tilapias in Asian countries namely Bangladesh, China, Thailand and Vietnam. The

development and intensification of farming systems of these species have raised serious

concerns regarding the sustainability of the practices involved and the overall trade. The

project aimed to establish an evidence-based framework to support current and future

stakeholder dialogues organised by third party certifiers, which could contribute towards

10

harmonized standards, helping consumers to make fully informed choices with regards to

the sustainability and safety of their seafood. The project ran from 2009 to 2013, taking a

highly interdisciplinary approach to address sustainability questions. Topics addressed

included environmental impacts, impacts of trade on local livelihoods and public health,

food safety including contaminants and traceability concerns, barriers to trade, and

ethics. Life cycle analysis was used to explore energy and material costs embedded in the

global value-chains, while food ethicists examined the value-laden nature of sustainability

decisions i.e. who decides which qualities are significant in relation to sustainability. This

thesis is concerned with the Thailand aspect of the project. The information in this section

on SEAT Project was summarised from project documents (SEAT, 2009).

1.5. Research objectives

The main objective of the study was to assess the sustainability issues faced by various

value chain actors, specifically shrimp and tilapia producers, based on their own

perceptions.

Specifically, the study aimed to:

1. Describe the historical development of aquaculture and the status of the four

commercially important seafood species (marine shrimp, tilapia, freshwater

prawn, striped catfish) in Thailand and assessing the factors contributing to their

importance in international and domestic markets (Chapter 3)

2. Analyse shrimp and tilapia farming systems according to the farm-level criteria of

global standards and certification to determine status of compliance between

farming enterprises of various farm scales (Chapter 4)

11

3. Assess the quality of life of shrimp farm workers according to their perceptions

and investigate the status of compliance to global standards for human resources

in aquaculture (Chapter 5)

4. Show the differences in perceptions on sustainability of various value chain actors,

and specifically, among producers according to farm scale and other relevant

variables (Chapter 6)

1.6. Key concepts/theoretical framework

The transdisciplinary nature of sustainability studies ensures that they are both complex

and varied in terms of approach. Figure 1.1 shows the general framework followed by this

research, namely:

Scoping and exploratory approach to obtain an overview of the historical

development and existing systems related to the four major species in this

research, i.e. marine shrimp, tilapia, freshwater prawn and striped catfish in

relation to the various stakeholders involved. This led to focus species that are

important to and have potential for export and trade, namely marine shrimp and

tilapia, respectively. This also led to identify system boundaries and stakeholders

who would participate in the more detailed research;

Integrated farm survey approach was conducted to obtain more detailed

information on production systems (farm level) of the focus species, i.e. marine

shrimp and tilapia, covering technical, economic, social and ethical issues. Also

includes determining producers’ perceptions on sustainability of their operations

to contribute to the development process for sustainability indicators for the

overall SEAT Project. In addition, several aspects of farm operations were

12

compared with the global certification standards to determine compliance

according to farm scales;

State of the system workshop approach to present preliminary findings for

triangulation with a group of integrated farmer survey respondents and

representatives from other relevant stakeholders (input service providers,

hatchery operators, processors, institutions, local government and academe),

including to obtain their perceptions on sustainability, which will also contribute

to the development process for sustainability indicators for the overall SEAT

Project;

Transition survey approach to determine changes in the farm operations of a

sample of respondents from the integrated farm surveys, and also to determine

samples for labour face to face survey;

Face to face surveys related to detailed issues on shrimp farm labour and

workers’ welfare, with particular interest on migrant labour in shrimp farms; and

to measure the existing farm conditions with the labour standards as well as

workers’ own perceptions of their quality of life;

Future steps stemming from this research: more information gathering on data

gaps, development of the sustainability indicators, dissemination of relevant

information, action research and policy advocacy, among others.

A multi-stage livelihoods approach was employed, keeping in mind the three main facets

of sustainability, i.e. environmental, economic and social or institutional. In the

sustainability and quality of life aspects of this research, information relied mainly on the

perceptions of various stakeholders.

13

As a starting point to analyse sustainability of farms and the link with farm scales, various

aspects of the aquaculture global standards and certifications were used as benchmarks.

In addition, a simple gender dimensions framework was incorporated into the approach

especially in formulating questions in the surveys to obtain gender-disaggregated data.

Figure 1.1 The general research framework

1.7. Structure of thesis

This thesis contains seven major chapters, the first being the Introduction, and the last

being the Overall Discussion and Conclusions, and the remaining five chapters contain the

main parts of the research.

Future steps

& labour patterns

14

Chapter 2 describes the general methodology followed in this research, especially

regarding the sample frame and design to determine study sites and survey respondents.

Subsets of these survey respondents were selected to provide information and

interaction in the other chapters.

Chapter 3 provides a systems overview of the four commercially important farmed

seafood species (marine shrimp, tilapia, freshwater prawn and striped catfish) in Thailand,

assessing the factors that contribute to their emergence as internationally traded

products or their restriction to domestic markets. This chapter provides the rationale for

focussing on shrimp and tilapia in this research.

Chapter 4 provides a detailed analysis of shrimp and tilapia production practices in

Thailand as well as the changes and trends. The chapter focusses on how the production

sector operates in order to fulfil both local and global demand for Thai seafood, including

the changes the sector has to face to achieve this. Current practices are presented using

the technical and legal aspects of international standards and certifications as a

framework. Changes and trends in the sector are assessed to understand likely threats to

sustainability of farming and the sector as a whole.

Chapter 5 focusses on the human resources and gender aspects of shrimp farming in

Thailand. The analysis focusses on how shrimp farms comply with the human resource

aspect of the global aquaculture standards and certifications, to determine whether these

standards are suitable in assessing the quality of life of shrimp farm workers, and to

compare them with the workers’ own perceptions of their quality of life.

15

Chapter 6 is about the sustainability perceptions of shrimp and tilapia stakeholders,

particularly the producers, analysing how different their perceptions are according to

farm scales and other variables, and how these producers are managing or changing their

operations to make the most of the situation. Having said that, there could be differences

in sustainability perceptions by the various stakeholders, or even by different types of

farmers, this may also mean that the definition of sustainability may be different from

one person to another, depending on the context and situation.

16

2. CHAPTER 2 General Methodology

This research involved connecting and interacting with actors/stakeholders across the

value chains of shrimp and tilapia production, processing and trade. The majority of the

data obtained were from the production node, i.e. the producers or farmers. Various

sources of information were used to build the general sample frame, on which selection

of survey respondents were based for subsequent field work. The general sample frame

of the whole study was based on census data obtained from local fisheries offices,

subdistrict administration offices, village chiefs, shrimp club offices and informal data

from key informants within individual communities, and additional secondary literature

from national government statistics, associations and company information.

This research was part of a bigger collaborative project called Sustaining Ethical

Aquaculture Trade (SEAT) funded by the European Commission under its FP7 Programme.

I have been actively involved in the design, planning and implementation of the various

phases of the research mentioned below which concerned the data collected for this

doctoral dissertation.

2.1. Research activities

This study involved four major research activities in connecting and interacting with

stakeholders from 2010 to 2013, which provide the data and information for the various

chapters of this thesis (Figure 2.1). This chapter presents the main sample frame, study

site selection and farmer selection which formed the basis for all the other subsequent

research activities involving the same sets of respondents. The various chapters in this

thesis will detail relevant methods to obtain data for that specific chapter.

17

Figure 2.1 Major research activities and timeline undertaken to collect field data

The first activity was an exploratory scoping exercise to assess the export potential and

domestic market status of the four cultured seafood commodities (marine shrimp, tilapia,

freshwater prawn, and striped catfish) in Thailand. This was done mainly through key

informant interviews and secondary literature search. In addition, both methods were

also used to identify key stakeholder groups and obtain a general overview of the

situation of each, including their perceptions on sustainability. This was conducted from

January to July 2010 using a checklist of questions (Appendix 2) covering issues which

SEAT Project was interested in. The results contributed to both the systems overview

(Chapter 3) and sustainability systems (Chapter 6) sections. Key informant interviews

were done through individual field visits and meetings with identified stakeholders,

attendance to producers’ seminars, and organising workshops attended by various

stakeholder groups. The scoping stage was also used to define system boundaries for

focus species to be used for subsequent research works.

Jan-Jul 2010 Nov 2010 – Mar 2011 Mar – May 2013 Apr – May 2013

18

The second activity was an integrated farm survey (IFS) focusing on producers of shrimp

and tilapia from major production areas in Thailand, with more detailed questions on

operations and practices, sustainability, generational factors, including socio-economic

information related not only to their aquaculture operations but also to their household

circumstances (Appendix 4). This provided information to all the work packages of the

SEAT project. The survey itself was conducted from November 2010 to March 2011, with

the sample design and selection of sites guided by the results of the scoping stage to set

system boundaries. A multi-stage sampling process was followed, starting from larger

(province) then progressing to smaller (district, sub-district, village) administrative units

(Murray et al., 2011). Furthermore, various datasets on farm locations, farmer names,

farm scales and farming systems, from key informant interviews and secondary literature

research during the scoping period were used to derive the location for study sites and

farms (see Section 2.2 for detailed description). Preparation for the survey started in July

2010 until November 2010. The methodology on selection of sites and respondents is

explained in this chapter (Chapter 2). More detailed descriptions relevant to the chapters

utilising data from the integrated survey are described in specific chapters i.e. current

practices and trends in Chapter 4, respondents’ background in Chapter 5, and

sustainability perceptions in Chapter 6.

A state of the system workshop was conducted as a continuation of the IFS, expanding to

include a sample of other value chain actors. The information from this activity also

contributed to the sustainability perception in Chapter 6. Details of the SOS workshop are

reported in Satapornvanit et al. (2011).

19

The third activity was a transition survey (Appendix 5) conducted by phone in March 2013

for shrimp farmers, and in April to May 2013 for tilapia farmers, i.e. 2-3 years after the

baseline integrated farm survey was conducted. The purpose was to assess key changes

that had occurred in farming operations and in the general situation of the farm business

operations and personal status of the integrated survey respondents. A detailed

methodology is presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

The fourth activity was a face to face survey of shrimp farmers, workers and key

informants on labour patterns from April to May 2013 based on the results of the

transition phone survey among shrimp farmers (third activity) (Appendix 6, Appendix 7).

A detailed methodology is explained in Chapter 5.

2.2. Sample frame

Definitions of farm scales were developed together with the other members of the SEAT

project team and formed part of a regional four country exercise. My involvement was to

provide inputs and information based on local conditions that were relevant to country-

specific criteria. The information came from previous scoping research and general

industry information. The definitions of the criteria used are explained below.

Shrimp farm samples were based on production scales, i.e. small, medium and large

(Table 2.1).

20

For tilapia, sampling was based on containment system (cages in river, ponds) at the first

instance, and under each system, tilapia ponds were divided into production scales, i.e.

small, medium and large (Table 2.2). The production scale for tilapia in cages was difficult

to determine as the scoping study indicated that a single farming household, or individual

within it, can manage the whole operation by themselves over a very large range of

production containment systems (from 1 to 100 units). The farmer interviewed during

scoping phase who had the most number of cages (100 units @ 9 m2 x 1.5 m/unit) was

producing around 600 T/year, hiring labour only for harvesting the fish. Whereas the

farmer with only one cage (25 m2 x 2.5 m) was producing 3.8 T/year. During this research

all farms with cages were not subjected to scaling. The criterion for large farms i.e.

registered company with vertical integration was still applied, and there was only one

tilapia farm (ponds) in the study area which fit this criterion, and none for cages.

Farm scaling for cages needs a different set of criteria which was not covered in this

research, maybe based on production intensity/levels per unit area.

Table 2. 1 Shrimp production/farm scales

Criteria Small Medium Large

No. of ponds Up to 2 3 and above N.A.

Business ownership Household/extended

family

Household/extended

family/external owner

Company/corporate

Farm management Household/extended

family

Household/extended

family/external owner

/hired manager

Hired manager

Labour relations Up to 2 hired full-time

labour

3 and above hired full-

time labour

Hired employees/

full-time labour

Source: Murray et al. (2011)

21

Table 2. 2 Tilapia pond production/farm scales

Criteria1 Small Medium Large

Area of farm Up to 2 has (12.5 rai) > 2 has. N.A.

Business ownership Household/extended

family

Household/extended

family/external owner

Company/corporate

Farm management Household/extended

family

Household/extended

family/external owner

/hired manager

Hired manager

Source: Murray et al. (2011)

2.3. Definition of farm scale criteria

As stated in Murray et al. (2011), the farms were categorized by scales according to

indicators which relate to their market orientation rather than production output alone.

During farm selection and surveys, these indicators were considered and were confirmed

with key informants and the farmers themselves.

Business ownership: The majority of farms are owned by individual persons, who assume

full-time management of the aquaculture operations and/or hire an external individual to

handle the management. Corporately owned farms are registered as a company with the

Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce. A number of “traditionally

large farms” based on farm size and operations, fall under the medium scale criteria since

they are not registered as a company. Major reasons cited by respondents for not

registering as a company include the paperwork and documentation required, as well as

tax level payments.

22

Farm management: Depending on scale, farms are managed by the owner herself/himself

or household member, i.e. partnership with the married couple owners or with the adult

children, or by external person hired as a manager.

Full-time waged labour: Even those considered small farms may also hire full-time labour,

especially if the owner is considered an absentee owner, or have other livelihood

activities or business interests. Workers are usually assigned responsibility for one pond,

workers employed as a couple typically manage two ponds. Nowadays, due to

mechanisation i.e. paddlewheel aerators and autofeeders, a worker may be able to

handle two ponds on his own, especially if experienced.

In tilapia farms, labour requirements are lower. For cage farms, a single person can

handle up to 100 cages (usually 9 m2 in area) and would just hire part-time workers to

help in harvesting.

Registered trading name: In Thailand, any aquaculture farm can register with the

Department of Fisheries. Registration is prerequisite for the traceability system involving

the Fisheries Movement Document (FMD) which is needed for exporting product. Other

types of aquaculture farms are also registered for the Thai Good Aquaculture Practices

(ThaiGAP) certification, as well as for annual fisheries statistics and disaster or welfare

benefits. Thus when disaster such as flooding occurs, farms registered with DoF can seek

government financial support. In addition, farms may register with the Department of

Business Development to be recognised as a corporate entity.

23

Vertical and horizontal integration: Vertical integration occurs when the different

stages/processes (i.e. from production to delivery) in the value chain is

coordinated/controlled/owned by one lead company or entity, which results in increased

efficiency and market power for that company. This could also be achieved through

agreements and written contracts with various actors/owners of processes, or being

involved in several activities in the value chain (GTZ, 2007; Laven et al., 2009). Larger

farms tend to have more integration of the production chain in order to minimise cost

and improve quality of production. This improves traceability of processes and inputs into

the production. Whereas horizontal integration in the farming sense occurs when one is

involved in the management issues including decision making in the chain (Laven et al.,

2009).

2.4. Selection of study areas

There were two major steps in the selection process for the study areas, namely the

selection of provinces and then the sub-districts (tambon). This process utilized secondary

data from the Department of Fisheries (DoF) and the Provincial Fisheries Offices (PFO).

The provinces were selected based on the number and area of registered farms including

accessibility from the Bangkok research base and the availability of support from local

Government offices, farmer groups and individual key informants.

Information from the DOF national fisheries statistics showing major areas of production

was also used as reference. Due to limitations in resources, time and accessibility, only

tilapia production areas in the central region were considered. Based on the DoF

statistics, the most productive provinces were Nakhon Pathom, Chachoengsao and

24

Petchburi for freshwater pond polyculture systems, and Suphanburi for monoculture

cages in river systems.

In contrast the most productive areas for shrimp were in the two major coastal regions,

i.e. the east and the south. For the eastern region, two provinces namely Chachoengsao

and Chanthaburi were chosen, while in the south, Surat Thani was chosen. These

provinces ranked among the top for production levels, number and area of farms as well

as accessibility considering resources of the project for those particular regions (Figure

2.2). Other southern provinces, namely, Nakhon Sri Thammarat, Songkhla and Satun were

later included as additional large farms were needed.

Figure 2.2 Provinces where the surveys were conducted

25

After selecting the provinces, the number of farms in the sub-districts (based on

information obtained from local Department of Fisheries) was sorted from highest to

lowest, and only those with more than 50 farms were subjected to a randomisation

process (Gentle, 2003) using the equation in MS Excel: = RAND( ) * (MAX(cell1:celln)-1) + 1,

where, cell1 is the first value in the column and celln is the last value in the same column

(Murray et al., 2011). The values are the cumulative number of farms in each sub-district

(after ranking from highest to lowest).

2.5. Farmer sampling

Obtaining a complete list of producer households/farm owners was not possible as this

information was subject to the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) of Thailand (Thai

Royal Gazette, 1997), whereby any personal information requested required a written

request and written permission of all farm owners/operators whose information was

accessed.

An initial list was obtained from published farmers’ lists from DoF websites, local fisheries

offices and key informants from the areas sampled randomly (see Section 2.4). An initial

categorisation was based on these lists, after which farms were categorised according to

scale to ensure adequate numbers of small and medium farms, based on the available

information. However information especially on labour, was not enough to completely

categorise them using the classification given above (Tables 2.1 and 2.2).

The second categorisation was based on key informant interviews (KIIs) in the field. Key

informant interviews were conducted to obtain a more detailed overview of the situation

26

of shrimp and tilapia farms in specific areas (Appendix 3). The initial categorised farmer

lists were validated by going to at least three key informants (sub-district administrative

organization (TAO) offices, the local farmer club and the village heads) in each selected

sub-district. Missing farmers’ names were identified and added to the list, while farmer

names from the secondary data were removed if they were no longer farming shrimp or

tilapia. However, if the farm itself still existed but had a different business owner, it was

still included in the list. Contact information of each identified farm was also obtained

from the KIs. In cases where the contact information could not be given by the KIs due to

confidentiality, the KIs were requested to contact the farms if ever they were randomly

selected. In most cases the KIs could not provide information on hired labour status of the

farms (which was one of the criteria to determine farm scales).

From the KIIs, new lists were drawn up and clusters were identified based on sub-districts

to ensure enough numbers of farms for selection. A randomised sample of households

was then applied with the scale independent variable strata to achieve the sample design

numbers. Randomisation using the Excel RAND formula was run on enterprise data after

farms were categorised into their production/farm scales. The randomisation programme

from MS Excel (= RAND( ) * (C1 - B1) + B1, where B1 is 1, and C1 is the highest number of

farms) was run to determine the farmers to be interviewed (Murray et al., 2011).

Initially, 200 shrimp and 200 tilapia farmers were sampled. However, due to reasons such

as availability and willingness to participate, the final number of respondents for shrimp

was 206 and for tilapia, 199.

27

2.6. Integrated farm surveys (IFS)

Farmers who were randomly selected from the above processes were contacted by either

field staff or KIs, depending on the availability of information and on the situation in each

site. In most cases, it was the key informant or KI (such as the village headman, subdistrict

head or his technical staff, or the local shrimp club head or his representative) who

assisted in contacting the respondents. The KI would arrange for the respondents to come

to a central place for the interviews to be conducted. Typically a local venue where

farmers already met informally was chosen for such interviews. After the interviews, the

farms were visited, and after permission was sought and given, GPS coordinates and

photographs were taken to characterise location and key characteristics. A few interviews

especially those organised directly by field research staff, were conducted in the farms

depending on the respondents’ preferences.

There were cases when some of the farms, especially large farms, requested an official

letter from the Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University. This has become standard

protocol in Thailand and the SEAT project management assisted in preparing and

procuring these letters to be sent to the farms/companies in the time period required by

the respondents.

Whereas the main target to interview were the farmers or farm owners, there were

instances when only the farm managers of shrimp farms were available to be

interviewed, especially in the case of some medium-scale farms and in all cases for the

large (corporate) farms.

28

The interviews were conducted by a team of Thai field research assistants who were

recruited and trained for several weeks prior to the scheduled interviews to familiarise

themselves with the questions, aquaculture terminology, and coding of responses, as well

as to have a basic understanding of shrimp and tilapia farming. Not all of the enumerators

had fisheries or aquaculture backgrounds but they all had field survey experience with

other non-aquaculture projects. Training sessions were conducted for either the whole

day, or half-day (morning or afternoon) depending on other work load of the staff. Prior

to the training, meetings related to questionnaire development were conducted, wherein

the enumerator team was also present to observe and/or participate in the discussions

(see Section 2.7). The final version of the translated (from English to Thai) questionnaires

was used for the training, which was conducted in the Thai language. In addition, the

accompanying notes developed by the SEAT project team (Murray et al., 2011) were also

used as reference to explain the questions and choices of responses. The Thai training

facilitator would clarify aquaculture specific topics or terms with me during and outside

the training sessions. The team would go through each question and